The colorization of black-and-white imagery has developed a bad stigma over the years, because more often than not, it damages the integrity of the original product. At some point or another, we have all seen a film from the 1930′s or 40′s and a laughably bad color-transfer that makes our eyes want to bleed. My first introduction to colorization came when I was very little, and happened upon a VHS of John Wayne’s The Sands of Iwo Jima, and even as a ten-year old I recognized it to be so horrendous that I had to shut it off. Since then, I have never given any of these changes much credence, until I happened upon this wonderful colorization of the last photograph ever taken of Abraham Lincoln, as he sat for Alexander Gardner in his studio less than a week before he was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth. We can thank the website “Shorpy” for this rendition that will hopefully lead to others:

I had never quite thought about it before, how something as small as this could lead to an entire new way of teaching. Not by way of changing lesson plans or anything like that, but the aid it would provide to teachers visually, whose students are lost after staring at old, grainy black-and-white images for months at a time. While I do agree that B & W can bring out shadows, contrast, and objectivity a hundred times better than color, the mindset of that kind of photography as an art-form would hold no bearing with the majority of middle or high school students. But, all of a sudden, you show them this picture of Lincoln above, and it opens new doors—it actually makes the history more accessible and understandable, and even for us adult history buffs, it just proves to be something really cool!

Various shows and mediums over the years have tried to accomplish such, examples being World War I in Color, which proved to be a disaster in my eyes, because the colors were flat-out ridiculous, and the latest, Death Masks, from the History Channel, did a decent job in bringing figures such as Lincoln, William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, and others, to life, because their heads were made with 3D graphics that allowed for blinking and facial movement. But for an aid to a lesson, nothing can really top this. I suppose colorizing one still-image is much different than doing it for a movie, with the colors having to mesh and blend with each cell. I truly hope that the creators of this picture will transfer more, maybe even some of the aftermath on Civil War battlefields (anyone else want to see the famous Gettysburg sniper photo done up in color?) to really bring the past alive for all!

36 Responses to Colorized Photo of Abraham Lincoln Breathes New Life Into History

Teach your students the real history of Lincoln please, not the revisionist history of Lincoln. He was a horrible person who caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands and used the guise of “freeing slavery” three years into the deeply unpopular civil war to get slaves to help defeat the south and rally abolitionists under his cause.

But don’t take my word for it. You’re young, and have probably been indoctrinated by your public schools that he is a great man. Research it yourself. I’ll start you off with some great Abe quotes.

On race mixing
“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas …”

On race equality
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. ”

On motivations for the Civil War
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union”

And Greg, keep in mind that every other civilized nation in modern history got rid of slavery without war.

Before you say I’ve been indoctrinated after reading a brief, non-political posting, maybe you should read some of my other work over at my blog before you lump me in with the rest of what you think society is. Thanks.

‘David’, ‘Jefferson F Davis’, or whatever your real douchebag name is, stop turning this into your sad pro-south political rant and ruining the nature of the topic please? RE-READ THE ARTICLE YOU BUFFOON! All Greg did was point out the benefits of colorization – tell me how that was proof of his political leanings?

Greg, I haven’t said you are indoctinrated. I’ve said you’ve probably been indoctrinated. Probably. As in, statistically. As in, Lincoln is consistently rated as the best president when he should be the WORST.

Yes David, but let us remember who it was that actually started the war AND WHY.

The Southern States feared that Lincoln, someone who believed in abolition before the war (FACT) would try to put and end to slavery – which was their biggest money maker – if he became president. Well guess what? He became president and southern forces attacked Fort Sumter (another fact). The rest, as they say, is history. So really the war was the South’s fault, and you can’t expect a government to sit back and do nothing when attacked. If there was no war then slavery would have died out eventually – maybe the South should have considered that…but alas they didn’t, they just panicked instead! And why did they panic? Because they knew of Lincoln’s stance on abolition, as mentioned above. Simple as. It looks like it is YOU, David, that has been fed ‘revisionist history’, but the ‘lost cause’ type.

Oh and one last thing, why was fighting to save the Union a very bad thing, exactly? I guess you don’t know anything about the Constitution, or common sense for that matter.

Remember, “A house divided…cannot stand”. We wouldn’t be the great nation we are today if we didn’t get here UNITED. Kay?

And despite Lincoln’s flaws, i’d like to see you or ANYONE try and do a better job than he did when he had his “Team of Rivals” to contend with, Abolitionists pushing for total and immediate abolition, and last but sadly not least, a Nation at War. I think he had a tough job and he did the best he could, legally and constitutionally…and slaves were freed eventually, after all. Pretty good if you ask me.

David- Talk about revisionism! You have incorporated attributes to an age, not just a man, which did not then exist. It was not Lincoln who started a war, but radicals on both sides who were itching for a scrap and used Lincoln as an excuse to do violence. It was Southern states who seceded, and attacked. Lincoln tried to keep a nation together. Could it have been different? Emphatically, yes! Given patience and time, slavery would have evolved away. But that’s not what happened. In my thinking, this war underscores America’s fatal flaw which reverberates to this day.
Your out of context quotes do not take into account the social, cultural and economic factors which made slavery an issue.
“Every other civilized nation” includes only a few European countries, who effectively exploited the rest of the world without having to undergo the expense of enslaving them.
A poor analysis at best and worthy only of the sound bite criticisms rife in today’s issues.
Greg- great picture

ok back on track….how do we know Lincoln’s bowtie/necktie/whatever it is would have been blue, or is that just creative license? I thought his was black (and no, not just because it’s black because of B&W photos, lol!).

Gettsbuff, claiming that the South “started” the war the circumstances shows that you are either ignorant of the circumstances or are being intentionally deceptive.

The south did not want this war. Lincoln wanted this war. The south claimed sovereignty and there was a military fortress in their sovereign lands. They asked to have it removed and gave plenty of time, and the north failed to comply. Lincoln pushed the south into this war. And as soon as the attack came, Lincoln used it as justification to let hell break loose. If we can’t get past this simple idea, there’s no sense in debating with you.

Correction on the first paragraph: it should read “Gettsbuff, claiming that the South “started” the war -without mentioning- the circumstances shows that you are either ignorant of the circumstances or are being intentionally deceptive.”

David, who’s comment came first on this page and therefore who is to blame for starting this highly off-topic ‘debate’ in the first place? I’m gonna say 2 things and them i’m done, because i do not feel it is necessary to defend myself.

1. The South fired the first shots so they DID actually ‘start’ the war. We can only speculate as to what the North would have done if the south had not rebelled because you, nor i, or even God knows.

2. It is well known that parts of the constitution are so ambiguous and hard to understand because so many different people worked on it, that it can be interpreted in different ways. The government at that time did not – whether they were right or wrong – believe that Secession was legal, and felt that the Union should be upheld. So of course they didn’t do what the south wanted.

“2. It is well known that parts of the constitution are so ambiguous and hard to understand because so many different people worked on it, that it can be interpreted in different ways. The government at that time did not – whether they were right or wrong – believe that Secession was legal, and felt that the Union should be upheld. So of course they didn’t do what the south wanted.”

This comment right here shows your ignorance of the Constitution. The Constitution deals with powers for the FEDERAL government. As per the 10th Amendment, ALL powers not granted to the federal government and not restricted to the states by the Constitution belong to the states. Therefore the states have a right to secede.

The Constitution has a single section that restricts what the states can do and that’s IT. They are very limited restrictions and clear-cut. Article 1 section 10. I invite you to look and tell me where in that section states cannot secede.
I’ll even list it for you:
“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

Oh and Gettysberg, for all your talk about the vagueness and ambiguity of the Constitution, answer me this: Do you really think that the states who ratified the Constitution, the same states who were very weary of a federal government and had to be sold on this Constitution extensively, would have ratified the Constitution if they were told that their voluntary entry into the union could not be withdrawn on pain of death? Seriously? Do you find logic to that? And I’m not just making a logical argument… I’m not just conjecturing here. There’s plenty of historical evidence from the ratification conventions that the states were assured that the union was voluntary and they could leave any time.

Are you deliberately trying to sound like a braindead Hillbilly, David, or what? Which part of “I’m gonna say 2 things and them i’m done, because i do not feel it is necessary to defend myself.” did you not understand? Stop trying to goad me into answering you when i’ve told you i’m not interested anymore – YOU BORE ME. You’re a crazy extremist and YOU’RE WRONG. So don’t bother replying again, next time you’re definitely getting ignored. U got that, boy?

Yes and No, Marge. Usually you will find that ‘the ongoing fight’ is predominantly more prevalent with certain extremist individuals in the american south and with some southern-sympathizers up North. It’s that whole ‘Lost Cause’ mentality and some are still angry that they lost. They are thankfully confined to only certain areas of certain states and do not represent the general consensus of the majority of the warm, charming, hospitable people of the south. Don’t get me wrong there are passionate buffs in the North too, but they usually don’t start debates over things like this in my experience because they have nothing to debate as they don’t feel like they were done a disservice. Most Northerners are happy to discuss different aspects of the war in more friendly ways.

Marge, why do we learn history? Is history irrelevant? Want to know why the Civil War effects your life today?

The Civil War removed a state’s right to secede from the union. Ok, so what? Here’s the thing Marge. By removing that right, the federal government is completely unchecked from oppression.

We have a Constitutional government that grants only limited powers to the federal government. When the federal government oversteps its bounds, who is left to stop it? Yes, the Supreme Court is the first line of defense. But don’t forget, the Supreme Court is a part of the federal government. So if the federal government is oppressive in all three branches, WHO can stop it? It’s up to the states to resist. And if the federal government isn’t yielding, and is entirely too oppressive, the threat of secession is the most powerful tool a state can have to deter this oppressive behavior. That’s what happened in the Civil War. It wasn’t because of “slavery”. Slavery existed the whole time. It was because of extremely high tariffs and very unfair treatment to the southern states by the federal government. They even stated that in their secession declarations! Go look it up.

Marge, the entire reason our Founding Fathers created the government the way they did, was to have a limited federal government and many sovereign states who could resist oppression.

And Marge, do note that this isn’t just academic. We now have the NDAA that allows the president to order the MILITARY to detain anyone, anytime, for mere suspicion of ASSOCIATING with terrorists (not even for being a terrorist). The language is so vague the president can detain anyone. No courts, no lawyer, no chance to defend yourself from the charges. Heck, no CHARGES! And the president now claims he can kill American citizens without due process, without presenting evidence even after the killing. (Look up Anwar Al-awlaki). And the Patriot Act basically does away with the 4th amendment by allowing the feds to write their own warrants, without judges. Our bill of rights has been killed by an unchecked federal government.

So Marge, in a sense, no, the Civil War isn’t over. People will always resist oppression as long as it exists.

You should put away in a mental asylum, David. You’re starting to sound just a LITTLE crazy now. The war IS over, and there is no such thing as a ceasefire regardless of how many rednecks you see driving along in their stupid trucks with a stupid bumper sticker saying “it ain’t over, etc”….I bet you have one, don’t you David.

I for one would feel safer if extremists like you were locked up safely behind bars because you probably own lots of guns and if sh*t WAS to ever go down in this country, i’m damn sure you’d be one of the first people out in the street woopin and hollerin and shootin y’alls guns in the air!

HARPER’S WEEKLY.
FEBRUARY 7, 1863
Pg. 96
To Color Photographs
Elegantly and rapidly, you have only to use NEWTON’S PREPARED COLORS. To get the genuine, see that each box and bottle has the name of the sole agent for the United States affixed, J. E. TILTON & CO., Boston. For sale in New York by WALTER LOW, 823 Broadway. Price $3.00 per box, and with a large bottle of Reducing Liquid, $3.25.

Therefore, I can easily see Matthew Brady or in this case Alexander Gardner, using color for their photographs. I suspect that Gardner being a professional, taking the photograph knew exactly what colors Lincoln wore, especially his neckwear.

Seeing other vintage photographs ‘tinted’ more slightly, e.g. cheeks and such, it isn’t as natural as a full effort to color the entire person and background. Unlike black and white which to me tricks the eye into two diamentions whereas color makes it three diamentional. I admire anybody who takes a good picture and then improve upon it. I sadly, do not have the talent to take good photographs so this color version of President Lincoln or any other person, is an appreciation for the talent of the colorist.

Thank you for the publishing of the color version of President Lincoln.

For those who claim Lincoln wanted war–please go back to the S.C. Articles of Secession and Gov. Pinken’s letter to H. Cobb, dated Feb. 13, 1861 [Reference O.R.s excerpt–> “…require that Fort Sumter should be reduced before the close of the present administration at Washington. If an attack is delayed until after the inauguration of the incoming President of the United States, the troops now gathered in the capital may then be employed in attempting that which, previous to that time, they could not be spared to do. They dare not leave Washington now and do that which then will be a measure too inviting to be resisted.

Mr. Lincoln cannot do more for this State than Mr. Buchanan has done. Mr. Lincoln will not concede what Mr. Buchanan has refused. Mr. Buchanan has placed his refusal upon grounds which determine his reply to six States, as completely as to the same demand if made by a single State.

If peace can be secured, it will be by the prompt use of the occasion, when the forces of the United States are withheld from our harbor. If war can be averted, it will be by making the capture of Fort Sumter a fact accomplished during the continuance of the present administration, and leaving to the incoming administration the question of an open declaration of war. Such a declaration, separated, as it will be, from any present act of hostilities during Mr. Lincoln’s administration, may become to him a matter requiring consideration. That consideration will not be expected of him, if the attack on the fort is made during his administration, and becomes, therefore, as to him, an act of present hostility. Mr. Buchanan cannot resist, because he has not the power. Mr. Lincoln may not attack, because the cause of the quarrel will have been, or may be, considered by him as past.
[end of excerpt]
President Lincoln’s Innauguration doesn’t take place until March 4, 1861. Meanwhile, this talk of war, having seized several forts by Gov. Picken’s authority and by armed force took over two U.S. Forts near Fort Sumter, is on President Buchanan’s Administration–to which his entire cabniet is in on the conspiracy to form another government while in the present one (Federal).

Timeline for those who need help with who was President when the unpleasantness began–
SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS.
December 20, 1860. — Ordinance of secession adopted by the South Carolina Convention.
December 26, 1860. — United States troops, under command of Maj. R. Anderson, transferred from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter.
December 27, 1860. — Castle Pinckney and Fort Moultrie seized by the State troops.
December 30, 1860. — United States Arsenal at Charleston seized by the State troops.
January 2, 1861. — Fort Johnson seized by the State troops.
January 5, 1861. — First expedition for the relief of Fort Sumter sails from New York Harbor.
January 9, 1861. — Steamship Star of the West fired upon by the State troops.
January 11, 1861. — Surrender of Fort Sumter demanded of Major Anderson by the governor of South Carolina and refused.(*)
March 1, 1861. — The Government of the Confederate States assumes control of military affairs at Charleston.
March 3, 1861. — Brig. Gen. G. T. Beauregard, C. S. Army, assumes command at Charleston.
[Day before Lincoln’s Innauguration]
April 3, 1861. — Schooner Rhoda H. Shannon fired upon by the Confederate batteries.
April 10, 1861. — Second expedition for the relief of Fort Sumter sails from New York Harbor.
April 11, 1861. — Evacuation of Fort Sumter demanded by General Beauregard.
April 12-14, 1861. — Bombardment and evacuation of Fort Sumter.

If people are talking about history, I sure wish they use facts and not prejudice to cite it.

How does that refute anything we’re talking about? What you wrote is clear evidence that what South Carolina wanted was the removal of foreign military fortresses from their SOVEREIGN land. Of course a sovereign nation is going to use force to remove an unwanted military base if the base refuses to close. What else are you going to do? South Carolina didn’t want to use military force; that was a last resort. Otherwise why bother warning the US?

Oh and if you don’t think South Carolina had a right to sovereignty, what do you have to say about the Declaration of Independence I wonder? Did the thirteen colonies have a right to sovereignty when they SECEDED from Great Britain?

Sigh. I think it’s best that we all just ignore David and his Lost Cause from now on. It doesn’t matter WHAT you say to people like him to try and educate them, they’re always gonna think what they’re gonna think so what’s the point…so just leave them alone and let them think what they wanna think and let’s spend our time trying to educate people that are worth trying to educate. Sadly, David is one of those people and is WAAAYYY beyond our or anyone else’s help.

Oh and M.E. Wolf, I just noticed something really cute that shows your bias. You call South Carolina a state even after it seceded. “December 27, 1860. – Castle Pinckney and Fort Moultrie seized by the State troops.” It’s a sovereign nation after its session. Unless of course you disagree with its sovereignty. In which case, you’ve already become partisan and no objective analysis of history can be done here by you. Isn’t that contrary to the entire point of your post? “If people are talking about history, I sure wish they use facts and not prejudice to cite it.” Not prejudice huh? Wish you’d take your own advice.

Wolf, one more thing I’d like to get across here: Maintaining unwanted bases and troops in a sovereign nation after the sovereign nation has asked you to leave is an act of WAR!

Sigh. I think it’s best that we all just ignore David and his Lost Cause from now on. It doesn’t matter WHAT you say to people like him to try and educate them, they’re always gonna think what they’re gonna think so what’s the point…so just leave them alone and let them think what they wanna think and let’s spend our time trying to educate people that are worth trying to educate. Sadly, David is one of those people and is WAAAYYY beyond our or anyone else’s help.

And David, you need to stop attacking everybody (especially innocent people like Marge – what did she do to you?!). By the amount of spelling and grammatical errors in your posts you are obviously the type of person that get’s all worked up very easily and so you start running away with your fingers. And if you haven’t already noticed, David, you’re all alone in your opinions and therefore in the minority. Not just on this blog, but you’re in the minority when it comes to your views compared to the views of most people ON THE PLANET. Very few historians subscribe to the lost cause theory in this day and age, David. Face it, you’re wrong. Get. over. it. The North won and we are a BEAUTIFUL UNION because of it. Like i said before, David (but you chose to ignore me once again because you are ignorant), we are a great country today because we arrived here UNITED. SIMPLE AS. The country would not be the world power it is today if every state was like a different country. FACT. We’d be more like Europe. Get a grip.

The Constitution does not permit a state to secede once it is a part of the Union. However, it does not prevent it either. It could be argued either way. This is common knowledge. So can we please agree to disagree!!!!

And my dear David, it is also well-known that those who support and defend the South will frequently (but incorrectly) use the Tenth Amendment as their justification for secession. So you are saying nothing revolutionary here. I will advise you to read the following, which gives no indication that this is correct: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/01.html#1

“The Constitution does not permit a state to secede once it is a part of the Union. However, it does not prevent it either. It could be argued either way. This is common knowledge. So can we please agree to disagree!!!!”
Absolutely not. It’s egregious enough that the federal government CONSTANTLY makes the argument you just made to expand its own powers and it has continually found newer and more expansive powers as time has gone by. As bad as that is, your argument is far worse. Why do I say this Ted? Because the Constitution enumerates the powers of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT only. There is not one SINGLE line in the entire Constitution that enumerates a power of the states, or “grants” some power to the states. The states already had all the power before the federal government was created. They gave away some to the federal government via the Constitution. That’s the purpose of the 10th Amendment. Anything power the federal government doesn’t have is RESERVED for states. You can’t reserve something you didn’t have in the first place. So Ted, to conclude that a state power can be argued both ways because it’s not listed in the Constitution is non-sensical. The Constitution doesn’t deal with state powers.

” I will advise you to read the following, which gives no indication that this is correct: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/01.html#1”
Ted, the entire article you linked relies entirely on McCulloch v. Maryland, a wrongly decided case written by Justice Marshall who, as a Federalist, deliberately tried to change the Constitution through judicial activism. He never once cited to the ratification conventions in all the cases he ever wrote. He completely invented the theory that the people, and not the states, formed the federal government in that McColloch case. Up until McColloch, there was only one explanation for how the federal government was formed, and that was through a compact between the states. (the compact theory). Marshall comes in and makes up his own theory to expand his judiciary power and implement the Constiution as he wanted it, not as it was ratified. Oh and Ted, one last thing. Marshall himself was on the ratifying board for Virginia and was one of the main people making this promise to the Virginians that their state can resist federal tyranny should it overstep its bounds, either through invalidating unconstitutional laws or withdrawing from the union.

The founding fathers called the tenth amendment the cornerstone of the Constitution. There’s a reason it’s the last of the bill of rights. The language is so clear that it’s truly absurd what this country has done to it.

Who cares if the south had a right to secede or not. The main issue is the issue of SLAVERY. Let’s just pretend – for the purpose of my point – that the South were legal in their secession…what then??!!!!??!!! You think they should have been ALLOWED to do WHATEVER they wanted to do which INCLUDED owning SLAVES? You think they should have been ALLOWED to take their SLAVES out west and SPREAD that EVIL INSTITUITON? If you answer yes, then you’re an idiot and a racist (which wouldn’t surprise me anyway).

If you’re a defender of so-called ‘states’ rights’, then you’re automatically a defender of slavery, plain and simple. You CANNOT argue otherwise as the main so-called ‘states’ right’ was the right to own slaves and to the right to take them wherever the people wanted to take them, even if that meant into a free state. So therefore you cannot have one without the other.

The Southern states declared in their secession speeches that the reason for their secession was the fear of LOSING SLAVERY. And don’t try and argue, David, just go and look it up and you’ll find the truth. But here’s one example to whet your appetite, per se:

“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.”

I agree. The most important statement (and the statement to end all statements) that one can make with regards to this ‘debate’, is the fact that if a state truly desires its freedom and independence IT CAN NEVER take away the freedom of another (that means OWNING A SLAVE, dear David, lol. ) whilst also being ‘free’ itself. The freedom to ‘self-govern’ does NOT mean that you can take away the freedoms of another individual. EVER. There is no comeback to this argument, unless you’re a nutjob white supremecist. If there are any out there that are reading this, please be advised in advance that i will not reply to any of your comments as i deem you to be below me on the evolutionary scale. Thank you for your cooperation.

Although i do not agree with secession for any reason, i would have more sympathy for the south if they had didn’t have slaves when they tried to secede. But they did, and it’s highly unlikely that they would have abolished them by themselves starting the day immediately after they seceded, if their secession was allowed and no war ever began. In reality they would have remained for quite a while; as to how long nobody can say. Whether anyone agrees with secession or not is not the point, what matters most is the powerful intent of the south to have, and continue to have slaves – THAT is wrong.

Wow. Forget that northern states were allowed to keep their slaves. Forget that the new england states continued to market slaves to other countries. Which prior to the war only sold 6% of their slaves to the south. Forget the outrage union soldiers felt when they discovered the south treated free blacks better then they thought they deserved to be treated. And forget the laws passed by northern states that banned blacks from moving there or even passing through, depending on the state. Yea, right. The civil war was fought over slavery, and anyone who says otherwise is a racist…

While the photo of Lincoln is certainly interesting – it is by no means “state of the art” colorizing. Visit American Photo Colorizing.com and see the advancements we’ve made in the technology.http://www.americanphotocolorizing.com

Or see our American Photo Colorizing blog at WordPress.com . We look forward to your visit!

Man, y’all are weird. And a bunch of little timid statist Lincoln worshiping wusses. Thank you David for your fundametal, lucid, and historicallly accurate commentary. These ignorant chumps need to roll over and get out of our way.

David, it Sounds to me like you are beating around the bush. Get to the point. It sounds to me like you don’t have enough balls to say what you mean. Let me ask you a series of questions:
1: You have repeatedly stated that Lincoln is an evil man because he did not immediately surrender when Fort Sumter was attacked. Please be concise. Do you wish that Lincoln would have immediately surrendered when the Confederacy attacked Fort Sumter?
2: After a theoretical surrender of Fort Sumter do you wish that Lincoln would have offered a general surrender and truce with the Confederacy allowing them to secede?
3: Allowing slavery would have been the moral thing to do in your book? Do you believe that God and the Bible would have approved of slavery, too?
4: Do you live in the one of the former Confederate states?
5: Do you wish you had slaves today?
6: Would you be happier today having two countries, one for slavery and one against?
7: I haven’t had to time to read all of you long rambling rantings (your only supporter is “The Austrian Brotherhood”? If only neo- Nazi supporters are coming to your aid what does that say about your point of view?) Have you ever been a member or a supporter or sympathizer with the KKK? Do you sympathize with the nazis or neo-nazis? Do you think Hitler did a good thing by killing 6 million Jews?
8: If Hitler had made an alliance with the Confederate States and won World War II do you think we would be better off had the Nazis killed all blacks and Jews?

Although not officially associated with the "To Appomattox" miniseries in any capacity, this blog was created in 2011 with the blessing of Michael Frost Beckner, the writer and executive producer for the series. Our goal is to present visitors to our blog with the latest news on the upcoming limited series, along with opinion pieces, and historical articles to highlight the people and events of the American Civil War as presented in "To Appomattox."

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.